Citation Nr: 18151883
Decision Date: 11/20/18	Archive Date: 11/20/18

DOCKET NO. 16-40 279
DATE:	November 20, 2018
REMANDED
Service connection for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is remanded.
Service connection for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including as secondary to the service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded.
A higher initial (compensable) disability rating for headaches from May 10, 2013 to June 13, 2016, and in excess of 30 percent from June 13, 2016, is remanded.
A higher initial disability rating for PTSD in excess of 30 percent from May 10, 2013 is remanded.
A total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from May 2011 to August 2011, from May 2012 to May 2013, and has had various periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) service with the Michigan State Army National Guard.
1. Service connection for IBS
2. Service connection for ADHD
3. A higher initial rating for headaches
4. A higher initial rating for PTSD
5. Entitlement to a TDIU
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from June 2014 and March 2015 rating decisions.  The June 2014 rating decision, in pertinent part, denied service connection for IBS and ADHD, and granted service connection for PTSD and assigned an initial 30 percent rating from May 10, 2013.  The March 2015 rating decision, in pertinent part, granted service connection for headaches and assigned a noncompensable rating from May 10, 2013, and denied a TDIU.  A subsequent July 2016 rating decision granted a higher initial rating of 30 percent for headaches from June 13, 2016.  
In response to a June 2016 Statement of the Case, the Veteran submitted a substantive appeal via VA Form 9 in August 2016, along with additional argument and evidence, including medical evidence and medical articles in support of the issues on appeal.  In an attached August 2016 correspondence from the Veteran’s representative, the Veteran specifically indicated that he did not waive Regional Office (RO) consideration of the new evidence in the first instance.  As the Veteran is specifically requesting this remand for RO review of additional evidence, a remand is required is required to fulfill due process requirements requested by the Veteran.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
Readjudicate the claims, with specific consideration of the arguments and evidence received with the August 2016 substantive appeal.  If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case.  An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board.
 
J. PARKER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	E. Choi, Associate Counsel